300 réponses à ce sujet

[Auralius Carolus]

CavScout wrote...

Look at the responses whenever something is brought up to invalidate Indoctrination Theory, the rebuttle is "it was all in his head!"

Do you know that theories should be falsifiable. Something Indoctrination Theory lacks.

www.youtube.com/watch

There. It isn't 100% conclusive, but it makes more sense than the current "Space Magic" form of Deus Ex Machina.

[NReed106]

CavScout wrote...

ryuasiu wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Indoctrination Theory says that nothing can invalidate Indoctrination Theory because it will just be attributed to Indoctrination Theory. You have folks setting up Indoctrination Theory being prove by Indoctrination Theory.

um, actually wrong again. IT has holes, just smaller and fewer. If you have a better well thought out explination about the ending other than 'space magic' or 'lol bioware b lazy' I would love to hear it and if its well thought out we can discuss it and you may talk me into believing it if theres good evidence.

*pulls up a chair and sits*

So please, by all means lets hear what you believe is truely going on. Becuase I have been looking for someone to come up with something diffrent.

Not liking the ending =/= Evidence of Indoctrination Theory

The ending is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. You not liking it doesn't make it "invalid".

Agreed, the Indoc theory is picking up the pieces of a past plot point in the game abandoned but not "cleaned up/removing the evidence of its existence".  The endings we got are just that, the current endings. 

That said, with enough effort they could be changed to make the indoc true and release a real ending after it

[Unlimited69x]

Even if the Indoct Theory is wrong. The ending makes no sense at all.

[CavScout]

The Smitchens wrote...

CavScout wrote...

NReed106 wrote...

My reasoning: The Indoc theory has to many set pieces/evidence that it was just coincidence (I mean trees in London magically appearing? An infinite ammo gun? etc) I think BW was going to use it and pull off one of the biggest "fooled you" moments in gaming history. It could have worked SO well if the theory was true. The problem I think, however, was they were running out of time and couldn't delay the game due to corporate demands. Thus they were forced to rush out a product with a shoddy ending hoping that us consumer drones would ignore the slap in the face it was.

The Indoc theory pieced together what BW hinted at, but sadly it was changed last minute to make it the actual ending

So to be clear, you're claiming Indoctrination Theory was what BioWare intended to do but just didn't actually do.... they meant to do it but never bothered....

There's a word for what they've done.  Subtlety.  You hint at things.  Leave tidbits laying around.  Like a big puzzle.  Gives people something to think about.

You can't even support that what they did... all you can say is "Indoctrination Theory is true therefore they put all this stuff in there to help you solve it!"

It's circular reasoning...

[ryuasiu]

CavScout wrote...

ryuasiu wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Indoctrination Theory says that nothing can invalidate Indoctrination Theory because it will just be attributed to Indoctrination Theory. You have folks setting up Indoctrination Theory being prove by Indoctrination Theory.

um, actually wrong again. IT has holes, just smaller and fewer. If you have a better well thought out explination about the ending other than 'space magic' or 'lol bioware b lazy' I would love to hear it and if its well thought out we can discuss it and you may talk me into believing it if theres good evidence.

*pulls up a chair and sits*

So please, by all means lets hear what you believe is truely going on. Becuase I have been looking for someone to come up with something diffrent.

Not liking the ending =/= Evidence of Indoctrination Theory

The ending is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. You not liking it doesn't make it "invalid".

Actually I loved the ending and I cant see what comes next. Problebly comes from loving other mind provoking endings in the likes of blade runner and inception. Any other IT beliver myths I can help you bust?

[CavScout]

liggy002 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

NReed106 wrote...

My reasoning: The Indoc theory has to many set pieces/evidence that it was just coincidence (I mean trees in London magically appearing? An infinite ammo gun? etc) I think BW was going to use it and pull off one of the biggest "fooled you" moments in gaming history. It could have worked SO well if the theory was true. The problem I think, however, was they were running out of time and couldn't delay the game due to corporate demands. Thus they were forced to rush out a product with a shoddy ending hoping that us consumer drones would ignore the slap in the face it was.

The Indoc theory pieced together what BW hinted at, but sadly it was changed last minute to make it the actual ending

So to be clear, you're claiming Indoctrination Theory was what BioWare intended to do but just didn't actually do.... they meant to do it but never bothered....

Maybe it's just because they simply didn't have the time to enact that ending with EA putting pressure on Bioware.  They are the ones fronting the money as you know.  So, we received the bad ending that they just slapped together.  Bioware would never admit this because that would mean that they released a bad product.  It's a good product but at the same time is a bad product because of the ending.

You don't see how this reeks of desperation? You're just saying that BioWare can never support the Indoctrination Theory so therfore it proves the Indoctrination Theory. BioWare not saying the Indoctrination Theory is true is proof that it is true! 

[leapingmonkeys]

The whole IT thing is just silly. Laser beams do not indoctrinate - they kill you. Go redo the Quarian home world quest - you can get hit by one of those Reaper laser beams there as well - and you die.

We're told that IT takes time, that one experiences head aches, the feeling of being watched, etc - none of which happened to Shepard.

IT is simply the final, tragic spasms of an ME fan's mind before it collapses under the knowledge of having been lied to and lead to a nihilistic dead end by Bioware where everything you have done is completely irrelevant.

[Yahmosa007]

Maybe high war assets increase your resolve and thus make you more malleable by the reapers because you have so many connections with characters (illustrated by you gathering an army/people etc). If you don't have these connections and low EMS, Shepard still has high willpower (because of the Players innate ability to choose) and isn't as easily manipulated, therefore, one choice with low EMS.

I choose synthesis at first because i cared for the Geth, i cared for EDI. Control is the ultimate sacrifice because you die and don't cause space magic to change the soul of organic life. You just fly the reapers away.

However if you execute destroy with low EMS, it destroys everything because shepards will to destroy the reapers (and only this, he doesn't care about anything else) is so high, that he overloads the crucible causing earths destruction.

but then again this is CLEARLY SPECULATION

edit.

TL;DR

Increase in sheps willpower via increasing his connection with the galaxy via war assets and recruiting result in the reapers being able to change his feelings into more choices that result in indoctrination.

Modifié par Yahmosa007, 27 mars 2012 - 01:32 .

[hexediter]

Capeo wrote...

Lakeshow1986 wrote...

EMS could be the difference between fighting the Reapers off and frying your brain, I don't know. The FACT is that IDT solves A LOT of plot hole issues, but may have the odd thing that stands out unless BioWare confirm otherwise.

No, that's not a fact at all. That's all in your head. The endings, as trite as they are, aren't plot holes unto themselves. People just don't like them nor their implications. The only pothole is the Normandy which wouldn't be one if they went with the original idea of killing your squadmates. They thought that was too harsh and lazily injected the Normandy scene. 

Explain why when shepard shoots Anderson that Anderson does not show a visable wound, but later shepard is oozing blood in the exact spot he just shot Anderson.

Explain why in the "shepard takes a breath on earth" cutscene how he survived an explosion on the citadel, re-entry through the atmosphere, and landing at terminal velocity.

Explain why the destruction of the mass relays doesn't destroy the systems they are in like in arrival.

Explain why even when shepard talks his/her voice has an echo to it.

Explain what the Normandy is doing and how your squadmates walked off of it.

Good luck with all of that...

[CavScout]

TheMerchantMan wrote...
It's an hallucination.

The destroy ending doesn't literally destroy the Reapers.

This is probably one of the weirder confusions among those who refute indoc theory.

It's not confusion, it's utter amazment that people think that by invoking Indoctrination Theory nothing can invalidate because well whatever
invalidate Indoctrination Theory is just proof of the Indoctrination Theory!

It's a sophistry ladden argument.

[liggy002]

The problem with the indoctrination theory is that it is just too damn cool. So, if Bioware tells us in April that they are not going with it, I will assume that they have gone mad and stop playing Bioware games.  It's already bad enough that they have left out Harbinger in Mass Effect 3 (yes he did appear, but he was left out!).  That in and of itself is madness unless they have some very elaborate DLC involving Harbinger that will make up for it.

Modifié par liggy002, 27 mars 2012 - 01:31 .

[Rafe34]

Lethys1 wrote...

tommythetomcat wrote...

Dare I say there is...

Lots of speculation for everyone in this thread

Actually, I'd say it's the opposite.  The thread completely dismantles nearly 20 mins worth of evidence of Indoc Theory in one sentence.  It makes it clear that the endings are just awful and not open to interpretation.  

The "speculation" referred to by devs has to do with, oh man what cool planet are they on, or, wow wonder how the turians and quarians will live.  Not whether Shep is indoctrinated.

No it doesn't, lol.

What an arrogant statement.

So one plothole that fifteen people have told you how to fix dismantles the entire thing, but 15 plotholes in the original ending doesn't show anything?

IT is not a perfect ending. It is the best ending, in terms of the one that fixes the ending the best.

[Kesak12]

mabye the reapers thought that shepard did not have enough military presence and the fleets would lose anyway.

Modifié par Kesak12, 27 mars 2012 - 01:32 .

[CavScout]

The Smitchens wrote...
Well.  To an extent yeah.  A lot of it would have been in his head.  That's the point.  It's indoctrination.  It's all about everything that is in his head.  It's all about Shepard's slowly deteriating state of mind.  That's the underlying idea of what ME3 in its entirety is about.  All the pressure of the galaxy on him coupled with the reaper influence.

Indoctrination theory isn't just an explanation for the end, but a suggested secondary plot to the game as a whole.  The reapers finding his weaknesses and exploiting them to lure him to their side.

It's a silly fan made reaction that basically says the game you just played was a waste of time. It replaces a "bad" game ending with a infinitely worse ending (or some might say, no ending).

[NReed106]

CavScout wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

NReed106 wrote...

My reasoning: The Indoc theory has to many set pieces/evidence that it was just coincidence (I mean trees in London magically appearing? An infinite ammo gun? etc) I think BW was going to use it and pull off one of the biggest "fooled you" moments in gaming history. It could have worked SO well if the theory was true. The problem I think, however, was they were running out of time and couldn't delay the game due to corporate demands. Thus they were forced to rush out a product with a shoddy ending hoping that us consumer drones would ignore the slap in the face it was.

The Indoc theory pieced together what BW hinted at, but sadly it was changed last minute to make it the actual ending

So to be clear, you're claiming Indoctrination Theory was what BioWare intended to do but just didn't actually do.... they meant to do it but never bothered....

Maybe it's just because they simply didn't have the time to enact that ending with EA putting pressure on Bioware.  They are the ones fronting the money as you know.  So, we received the bad ending that they just slapped together.  Bioware would never admit this because that would mean that they released a bad product.  It's a good product but at the same time is a bad product because of the ending.

You don't see how this reeks of desperation? You're just saying that BioWare can never support the Indoctrination Theory so therfore it proves the Indoctrination Theory. BioWare not saying the Indoctrination Theory is true is proof that it is true! 

No my point was that the Indoc theory was a planned plot that got scrapped (Dark Energy and Haestrom for example).  If BW actually changes the endings it can be quite possible to change the mechanics and make the Indoc theory a plot point.  The ball is in their court if they want to stick by the plot hole ridden ending we have, or possibly change the endings slightly to make the Indoc Theory a plot point and after that have a real ending

[thehomeworld]

The end could also be explained as the laser knocks shep out but he's still resistant to Harbi so he tries to hack him the dream citadel moments is Harbi trying to distract shep's mind further if you pick the destroy option you resist him and wake up if you don't pick that option then you become his pawn to then in real life take the beam and then destroy the fighting fleets on behalf of the reaper forces.

[CavScout]

Auralius Carolus wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Look at the responses whenever something is brought up to invalidate Indoctrination Theory, the rebuttle is "it was all in his head!"

Do you know that theories should be falsifiable. Something Indoctrination Theory lacks.

www.youtube.com/watch

There. It isn't 100% conclusive, but it makes more sense than the current "Space Magic" form of Deus Ex Machina.

Solving "space magic" with more space magic (i.e. D&D's Charm Spell) is pretty pathetic, no?

And whatever the Reaper solution was going to be was going to be "space magic".

[The Smitchens]

Rafe34 wrote...

No it doesn't, lol.

What an arrogant statement.

So one plothole that fifteen people have told you how to fix dismantles the entire thing, but 15 plotholes in the original ending doesn't show anything?

IT is not a perfect ending. It is the best ending, in terms of the one that fixes the ending the best.

This pretty much sums things up for me.  Currently there isn't any suggested interpretation that makes more sense or fills in nearly as many plot holes as easily as indoctrination.  At that point it's just looking at the theory, looking at the game, then paying attention.

If someone comes up with a better suggestion then I guarantee the majority will follow it provided it makes more sense.  And that is entirely possible.  Bioware just might pull a twist on us and debunk indoctrination.  Who knows?

[Deaddude56]

Why would Earth be destroyed for a low EMS? I want to believe in the IT, but there are too many variables. We'll have to wait for something official, I guess.

[CavScout]

NReed106 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Not liking the ending =/= Evidence of Indoctrination Theory

The ending is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. You not liking it doesn't make it "invalid".

Agreed, the Indoc theory is picking up the pieces of a past plot point in the game abandoned but not "cleaned up/removing the evidence of its existence".  The endings we got are just that, the current endings. 

That said, with enough effort they could be changed to make the indoc true and release a real ending after it

You can't even support the Indoctrination Theory was intended enough for them to put "evidence" in the game for it...

[Rafe34]

CavScout wrote...

TheMerchantMan wrote...
It's an hallucination.

The destroy ending doesn't literally destroy the Reapers.

This is probably one of the weirder confusions among those who refute indoc theory.

It's not confusion, it's utter amazment that people think that by invoking Indoctrination Theory nothing can invalidate because well whatever
invalidate Indoctrination Theory is just proof of the Indoctrination Theory!

It's a sophistry ladden argument.

What?

It's not sophistry at all, lol.

It's a matter of saying, "Look, there's a ton of things in the game that point to this being an attempt to indoctrinate Shepard. Maybe it is. Let's run with that theory and see how it fits the rest of the evidence. Oh look. It fits the rest of evidence very well. There are a few unresolved matters, but is it a better fit than the endings we have? Why yes, yes it is. Okay, let's run with that until told otherwise."

Perfectly and completely logical. Unless someone is saying IT is proven true beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The argument is really easy to follow- Bioware wrote a fantastic game. IT is more logical and has far less plotholes than the original ending. Thus, Bioware intended IT. - as a working theory, mind you, not as proof.

Now based on what they've said, I don't think IT actually occurred, but saying it's worse than the original ending, or saying that one single plothole invalidates it when the original ending has a dozen is just fail logic. The fans created a better ending in a week than BW did in two years, lol.

Modifié par Rafe34, 27 mars 2012 - 01:35 .

[liggy002]

If they go with some plot point that involves Star Kid posessing Shepard, I will choose the destroy ending. That's not the game destroy ending. I will destroy my Mass Effect 3 disc so I can never play it again.

[E_rik]

About the low EMS issue, I heard a pretty good explaination about it somewhere, forget where it was tho. But it pretty much said that Synthesis and Control result in total indoctrination and Destroy is Shepard "destroying" the reapers in his mind. With a low EMS, the Reapers decide that they don't need Shepard because he couldn't unite the galaxy against them, and lets him go. With high EMS, the catylst/reapers try to convince him to go the total indoctrination route so that they can use his influence to control the races for the reapers.

I don't remember the total post, but this was the general gist of it.

[Auralius Carolus]

leapingmonkeys wrote...

The whole IT thing is just silly. Laser beams do not indoctrinate - they kill you. Go redo the Quarian home world quest - you can get hit by one of those Reaper laser beams there as well - and you die.

We're told that IT takes time, that one experiences head aches, the feeling of being watched, etc - none of which happened to Shepard.

IT is simply the final, tragic spasms of an ME fan's mind before it collapses under the knowledge of having been lied to and lead to a nihilistic dead end by Bioware where everything you have done is completely irrelevant.

Watch the video I linked at the top of the page. While Shepard never had the feelings of being haunted, that would have been a narrative give-a-way. I'm not a die-hard IT guy, but it does explain a lot, as well as why BW/EA said they wanted the community to discuss it, as well as the ridiculous deflection that's been going on.

[Divitiacus]

How is this that difficult to figure out? Shepard does not wake up after this choice, clearly he ends up either dead or indoctrinated. As some have said, the fleet could already be beated at this point so Shepard is pointless. Starchild is meaner, the whole thing could be even his mind knows he's dead soon, so destroy. Or control, because he's going to be controlled. So either dead or indoctrinated at the end.